...they're going to boost the mass spectrometer to 105% (for the extra resolution). It should be fine just so long as they follow standard insertion procedure...but you don't need to know that - everything will be fine.
Newton's law underwent some serious revisiting in 1905 when a chap called Einstein realised that masses are not constant/absolute but in fact relative, and this is why the modern relativistic notation differs quite a bit from the original F=ma.
How does a burrowing dinosaur 91 million years ago prove or disprove anything about the asteroid impact 65 million years ago? I must have missed a leap of logic somewhere...
If Linux were as hot as the woman in the videos, no geeks would be running Linux for fear of multiple stuckdown keys and shortcircuits caused by drooling.
The greatest problem is that the Novell ads are simply not funny enough. They need a couple of John Hodgmans as a counterpoint.
Besides which, since Novell sold out to the Great Satan (according to some Slashdot zealots), Linux should be represented by someone in rags running Debian (and permanently late catching up)
The Kool-Aid is marked as a Champagne where each grape was individually squeezed by people who googled an article on how to produce wine. The expert vintner proved to be a 24-year old from Kentucky who had no experience.
It's mostly tasteless although there's an aftertaste which suggest that quite a few pissed into the bottle. It's generally believed by Wikipedians that it tastes as good as any Mouton Rothschild and it's free, free, free!
Until we have somewhere near the climatological coverage we have on Earth, I doubt that many will take these results seriously. Unless, of course, one has no problem with employing double standards on data that support their cause.
Since Triton and Pluto have extremely slight atmospheres and the temperature change is on the order of 5 degrees, it makes it very close to an equilibrium situation with no feedbacks to worry about.
Comparing that with the 0.6 degrees of Earth during the 20th Century demonstrates a) how much negative feedback is in the Earth's climate and b) how insignificant and ridiculous are the claims of "eco-Apocalypse".
The double standard is of course that there's no James Hansen to alter the historical record in order to present the current warming as "unprecedented" in X thousand years when its nothing of the kind.
94% of Slashdotters think Wikipedia is a great idea. 94% of Slashdotters are virgins (probably the same 94%) 96% of Slashdotters can't add and don't know what the other 14% are even worse
and....
a full 98.6% of Slashdotters enjoy fake statistics for comic effect.
I'd be surprised if Pluto weren't warming, given it is just past perihelion and it has some quirky orbital parameters. Funny how when things get closer to the sun they warm up a bit. I'd also point out neither article mentions anything to do with the sun getting hotter, and both have quite plausible explanations for the observed trends on both bodies
Actually since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn't fit the "Constant Solar Constant" BS
So you've failed the reading test. Will we get a conspiracy theory?
These articles in no way supports your "OMG it's a conspiracy!" distortion field, unless you believe the astronomers are in on it with the climatologists and geologists.
I didn't posit a conspiracy since the astronomers are simply reported experimental results. By no means do all or even most astronomers believe the global warming hysteria, nor all climate scientists.
Also, if you bother to check your history, James Hansen didn't pull this out of his ass and a bunch of climatologists suddenly said "Brilliant! We can finally crush ExxonMobile/Shell/BP/Chevron!!!".
I didn't say that he did then, although he has exactly no scruples about doing it now. Nevertheless the decision to back the greenhouse theory was a political decision taken during the Carter administration, as described in a book called "The End" published in 1988.
He also has no scruples about rewriting recent climate history making the late 20th Century warmer and the early 20th Century colder. This isn't conspiracy but cold hard fact. History being rewritten according to a hypothesis. It's just like Wikipedia.
There was quite a bit of review and discussion early on, it's just that the theory that best explained the observations survived, which is how good science works.
Actually it survives not because it makes the best observations (it doesn't) but by a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party. Comparisons with Holocaust Deniers abound, and Hansen keeps altering history to fit his pet theory.
Of course the biggest lie you've swallowed is that all of this is somehow disinformation by Exxon. It takes a very wide gullet to manage that one but you've taken it in your stride.
The next time you go to the hospital, I hope you have the same happy-go-lucky attitude to qualifications and expertise. Because there must be an intelligent and motivated janitor willing to perform the surgery.
Actually I haven't learned anything from you - except that you're an intransigent Wikidiot who can't think straight.
Wikipedia is a faith-based encyclopedia of facts, half-truths, lies, half-lies, ambiguity and propaganda. It is a constantly shifting agglomeration of prejudices with occasional links back to the source of prejudices.
It's impossible to avoid online - which makes it more like an intellectual virus than an academic resource.
It doesn't matter how many mistakes, falsehoods and inaccuracies are within Wikipedia because no-one is responsible and no-one is to blame. And if you criticize Wikipedia with reference to facts, be prepared for some idiot to criticize for pointing out those facts, making it out that its the responsibility of every user on the planet to "fix it", but not the responsibility of anyone that it stays fixed for more than a microsecond.
Oh and truth is no defence. In order for that truth to stay in Wikipedia it must be popular. Otherwise you should be banned.
Persisting and attempting to override the objections of others, even if you happen to be right, is not being bold, it's being stubborn, and for that you can be banned.
You've just nailed the problem of Wikipedia. Well done.
Name a single scientist who denies that the climate is currently warming. Just one.
You can't? You're not going to bother because its so trivial? Or because its simply not true?
So when a global warming story comes along (as it does all too frequently) then make the same straw man case over and over. Google does the rest.
The question is not if the climate is warming, since the global climate has generally warmed since the early 17th Century (well before industrialization but hey! what's the point of quibbling over trivia?), the questions are does that warming have a single human-based cause and if so should we do anything about it and can we do anything about it.
But first, before we know whether the current warming is extraordinary, we've got to check that a few scientists aren't rewriting the past to make the late 20th Century warming seem greater than it really is.
The whole question of whether the warming is natural or man-made is one of the great open questions of science.
We will now see the Slashdot effect applied to moderating this response down so that readers are not accidentally and unnecessarily educated.
I mean who else would let you write content for nothing, while he selflessly collects the revenue from the Adsense? I'm sure plenty of sucke...willing writers would love to selflessly give their time to creating free content for Jimbo.
It's the Wikipedia model and its going to change the world!
PS.
He had only one criticism, he said, to make of Mr. Pilkington's excellent and neighbourly speech. Mr. Pilkington had referred throughout to "Animal Farm." He could not of course know-for he, Napoleon, was only now for the first time announcing it-that the name "Animal Farm" had been abolished. Henceforward the farm was to be known as "The Manor Farm"-which, he believed, was its correct and original name.
"Gentlemen," concluded Napoleon, "I will give you the same toast as before, but in a different form. Fill your glasses to the brim. Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm! "
There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three. But what was it that seemed to be melting and changing? Then, the applause having come to an end, the company took up their cards and continued the game that had been interrupted, and the animals crept silently away.
But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You have a responsibility to fix Wikipedia because you want it to change. If you don't want that responsibility, then you can accept Wikipedia as it is and move along. To repeat: Wikipedia is not an entity capable of having responsibilities to you or anyone.
That's just idiotic. The point of any criticism is to state what is wrong. You're telling me that I can't have a critical opinion unless I'm prepared to fix it? Bullshit.
Aside from the distinction between giving back to a website that offers free content to you and actual slavery, yes you do. You can browse Wikipedia and simply accept that from time to time, you may see vandalism, poorly-written articles, and inaccurate statements. You can buy a copy of Britannica or Encarta. You can browse away to any other website. What you can't do is complain that you haven't been given what you've been promised, because no one promised you anything.
See above. Wikipedia is not my responsibility to fix. In my opinion Wikipedia is broken because its model is broken. In any case Wikipedia's innaccuracies are not justified by the fact that it is free to browse. Being free to use does not obviate any responsibility for accuracy.
As I pointed out, its very difficult to avoid Wikipedia because its scraped so much. It's also difficult to avoid information on the internet whose sole source is Wikipedia. It's like an intellectual virus whose propagation is every uncritical idiot who uses it as a source.
This needs a {{fact}} tag. I'm sure you're leaving out how these editors were trying to add inflammatory or POV material, ignored all requests to stop, refused well-meaning compromises, and repeatedly edit warred to get their version in. Even so, if you can tell me how to get banned by adding verifiable, NPOV material in one edit, I will make that edit and we will see if I get banned.
No. I'm talking about knowledgeable editors, experts in their fields who have been banned or suspended because they were trying to correct information that was grossly wrong, and were attacked by one or more editors and then admins who backed them. Those are matters of fact.
I don't believe I said you should take a simple factual error to dispute resolution. I said that if you see something plainly wrong on Wikipedia -- like the elephant population tripling -- click the edit link and fix it. The people who end up at ArbCom are personally obsessed with obscure topics, trying to force their views on everyone else. They are the personification of stubborn.
Nope. Sometimes they've just been pushed there by the admins who claim to know better. Many ArbCom decisions on matters of fact have been grossly wrong.
But hey! It's free! What's the problem with that?
You think it's broken because it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be. If you wish it to conform, you are making it your responsibility. That drive for Wikipedia to be something other than it is did not exist before you willed it. "Wikipedia" is not trying to be perfect or even better, because it cannot try to do anything.
I think China as a model for a country is grossly wrong. I can give you chapter and verse on why. That doesn't mean its my responsibility to {{fixit}}
There is no website more guilty of agenda-driven science than RealClimate. Most of its articles are driven entirely by politics and a seeming vendetta against any scientist who dares challenge them on it (most science questions are simply moderated out of existence)
Your mistake is in regarding Wikipedia as an entity with goals or responsibilities. Wikipedia is simply the collection of the input of its users, of which you are one. If you want something on Wikipedia to change, it is up to you to do something about it.
You've failed to answer the question. Why do I have a responsibility to Wikipedia when Wikipedia has no responsibility to me? Why is it my problem that Wikipedia is full of mistakes, half-truths, lies and omissions? Do I have any say as to whether I accept being an unpaid slave?
You don't get banned for being bold. You don't even get banned for being a dick. You get banned for being stubborn. Doing something stupid once almost never results in a ban. Doing something stupid repeatedly after being asked to stop will get you banned.
I've seen lots of people get banned for writing something that is demonstrably true that pissed off an administrator. And then other administrators backed the original admin. Arbitration or any conflict resolution is a sick joke on Wikipedia. In the end, the most obsessive person wins by gaming the system, not by anyone standing up for historical accuracy or scholarship.
It ISN'T my responsibility to fix Wikipedia. If the model is broken, then its broken.
Since when is it my responsibility to fix Wikipedia? And what happens when one of the many crazies simply reverts it? As for the "Be Bold" directive, don't make me laugh - people get themselves banned for being bold.
Wikipedia has no responsibility to me to keep me properly informed - why should I have any responsibility to Wikipedia?
"(Let's hope that, in Novell, Peugeot Citroen hasn't bought a lemon.)"
Let's hope that Slashdot contributors stop behaving like crazed fundamentalist idiots at the mere mention of Novell's SuSE Linux (which rocks by the way) because of an agreement to share technology with Microsoft.
Novell has fscked up in lots of ways but SuSE Linux isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
...they're going to boost the mass spectrometer to 105% (for the extra resolution). It should be fine just so long as they follow standard insertion procedure...but you don't need to know that - everything will be fine.
Newton's law underwent some serious revisiting in 1905 when a chap called Einstein realised that masses are not constant/absolute but in fact relative, and this is why the modern relativistic notation differs quite a bit from the original F=ma.
Not so. Even in Einstein's relativity, mass is invariant.
Fox News has had David Milloy, discredited author of junkscience.com on their payroll for years.
1. That would be Steven Milloy, not David
2. "Discredited author of junkscience.com"? Hardly. Opinionated? Yes. Right all the time? No.
That isn't to say that Fox News is a "fair and balanced" source - far from it.
"Bias. Slander/Libel?" Quite.
You are clearly a Wikipedia editor - your fact checking and NPOV-style give you away.
How does a burrowing dinosaur 91 million years ago prove or disprove anything about the asteroid impact 65 million years ago? I must have missed a leap of logic somewhere...
If Linux were as hot as the woman in the videos, no geeks would be running Linux for fear of multiple stuckdown keys and shortcircuits caused by drooling.
The greatest problem is that the Novell ads are simply not funny enough. They need a couple of John Hodgmans as a counterpoint.
Besides which, since Novell sold out to the Great Satan (according to some Slashdot zealots), Linux should be represented by someone in rags running Debian (and permanently late catching up)
The Kool-Aid is marked as a Champagne where each grape was individually squeezed by people who googled an article on how to produce wine. The expert vintner proved to be a 24-year old from Kentucky who had no experience.
It's mostly tasteless although there's an aftertaste which suggest that quite a few pissed into the bottle. It's generally believed by Wikipedians that it tastes as good as any Mouton Rothschild and it's free, free, free!
By any chance, do you edit Wikipedia?
No-one can tell whether you're being sarcastic. Well done.
Until we have somewhere near the climatological coverage we have on Earth, I doubt that many will take these results seriously. Unless, of course, one has no problem with employing double standards on data that support their cause.
Since Triton and Pluto have extremely slight atmospheres and the temperature change is on the order of 5 degrees, it makes it very close to an equilibrium situation with no feedbacks to worry about.
Comparing that with the 0.6 degrees of Earth during the 20th Century demonstrates a) how much negative feedback is in the Earth's climate and b) how insignificant and ridiculous are the claims of "eco-Apocalypse".
The double standard is of course that there's no James Hansen to alter the historical record in order to present the current warming as "unprecedented" in X thousand years when its nothing of the kind.
94% of Slashdotters think Wikipedia is a great idea.
94% of Slashdotters are virgins (probably the same 94%)
96% of Slashdotters can't add and don't know what the other 14% are even worse
and....
a full 98.6% of Slashdotters enjoy fake statistics for comic effect.
The sad ones who don't will be appearing shortly.
I'd be surprised if Pluto weren't warming, given it is just past perihelion and it has some quirky orbital parameters. Funny how when things get closer to the sun they warm up a bit. I'd also point out neither article mentions anything to do with the sun getting hotter, and both have quite plausible explanations for the observed trends on both bodies
Actually since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn't fit the "Constant Solar Constant" BS
So you've failed the reading test. Will we get a conspiracy theory?
These articles in no way supports your "OMG it's a conspiracy!" distortion field, unless you believe the astronomers are in on it with the climatologists and geologists.
I didn't posit a conspiracy since the astronomers are simply reported experimental results. By no means do all or even most astronomers believe the global warming hysteria, nor all climate scientists.
Also, if you bother to check your history, James Hansen didn't pull this out of his ass and a bunch of climatologists suddenly said "Brilliant! We can finally crush ExxonMobile/Shell/BP/Chevron!!!".
I didn't say that he did then, although he has exactly no scruples about doing it now. Nevertheless the decision to back the greenhouse theory was a political decision taken during the Carter administration, as described in a book called "The End" published in 1988.
He also has no scruples about rewriting recent climate history making the late 20th Century warmer and the early 20th Century colder. This isn't conspiracy but cold hard fact. History being rewritten according to a hypothesis. It's just like Wikipedia.
There was quite a bit of review and discussion early on, it's just that the theory that best explained the observations survived, which is how good science works.
Actually it survives not because it makes the best observations (it doesn't) but by a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party. Comparisons with Holocaust Deniers abound, and Hansen keeps altering history to fit his pet theory.
Nope. The proposition that manmade greenhouse gases are causing "an enhanced greenhouse effect" is the proposition of a nutcase called James Hansen.
And you swallowed the lie whole with a side of bad climate modelling.
Funnily enough Triton is warming as is Pluto
Of course the biggest lie you've swallowed is that all of this is somehow disinformation by Exxon. It takes a very wide gullet to manage that one but you've taken it in your stride.
The next time you go to the hospital, I hope you have the same happy-go-lucky attitude to qualifications and expertise. Because there must be an intelligent and motivated janitor willing to perform the surgery.
Actually I haven't learned anything from you - except that you're an intransigent Wikidiot who can't think straight.
Wikipedia is a faith-based encyclopedia of facts, half-truths, lies, half-lies, ambiguity and propaganda. It is a constantly shifting agglomeration of prejudices with occasional links back to the source of prejudices.
It's impossible to avoid online - which makes it more like an intellectual virus than an academic resource.
It doesn't matter how many mistakes, falsehoods and inaccuracies are within Wikipedia because no-one is responsible and no-one is to blame. And if you criticize Wikipedia with reference to facts, be prepared for some idiot to criticize for pointing out those facts, making it out that its the responsibility of every user on the planet to "fix it", but not the responsibility of anyone that it stays fixed for more than a microsecond.
Oh and truth is no defence. In order for that truth to stay in Wikipedia it must be popular. Otherwise you should be banned.
Persisting and attempting to override the objections of others, even if you happen to be right, is not being bold, it's being stubborn, and for that you can be banned.
You've just nailed the problem of Wikipedia. Well done.
Name a single scientist who denies that the climate is currently warming. Just one.
You can't? You're not going to bother because its so trivial? Or because its simply not true?
So when a global warming story comes along (as it does all too frequently) then make the same straw man case over and over. Google does the rest.
The question is not if the climate is warming, since the global climate has generally warmed since the early 17th Century (well before industrialization but hey! what's the point of quibbling over trivia?), the questions are does that warming have a single human-based cause and if so should we do anything about it and can we do anything about it.
But first, before we know whether the current warming is extraordinary, we've got to check that a few scientists aren't rewriting the past to make the late 20th Century warming seem greater than it really is.
The whole question of whether the warming is natural or man-made is one of the great open questions of science.
We will now see the Slashdot effect applied to moderating this response down so that readers are not accidentally and unnecessarily educated.
...if the next version will be called "Gay Giraffe"
I mean who else would let you write content for nothing, while he selflessly collects the revenue from the Adsense? I'm sure plenty of sucke...willing writers would love to selflessly give their time to creating free content for Jimbo.
It's the Wikipedia model and its going to change the world!
PS.
He had only one criticism, he said, to make of Mr. Pilkington's excellent and neighbourly speech. Mr. Pilkington had referred throughout to "Animal Farm." He could not of course know-for he, Napoleon, was only now for the first time announcing it-that the name "Animal Farm" had been abolished. Henceforward the farm was to be known as "The Manor Farm"-which, he believed, was its correct and original name.
"Gentlemen," concluded Napoleon, "I will give you the same toast as before, but in a different form. Fill your glasses to the brim. Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm! "
There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three. But what was it that seemed to be melting and changing? Then, the applause having come to an end, the company took up their cards and continued the game that had been interrupted, and the animals crept silently away.
But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You have a responsibility to fix Wikipedia because you want it to change. If you don't want that responsibility, then you can accept Wikipedia as it is and move along. To repeat: Wikipedia is not an entity capable of having responsibilities to you or anyone.
That's just idiotic. The point of any criticism is to state what is wrong. You're telling me that I can't have a critical opinion unless I'm prepared to fix it? Bullshit.
Aside from the distinction between giving back to a website that offers free content to you and actual slavery, yes you do. You can browse Wikipedia and simply accept that from time to time, you may see vandalism, poorly-written articles, and inaccurate statements. You can buy a copy of Britannica or Encarta. You can browse away to any other website. What you can't do is complain that you haven't been given what you've been promised, because no one promised you anything.
See above. Wikipedia is not my responsibility to fix. In my opinion Wikipedia is broken because its model is broken. In any case Wikipedia's innaccuracies are not justified by the fact that it is free to browse. Being free to use does not obviate any responsibility for accuracy.
As I pointed out, its very difficult to avoid Wikipedia because its scraped so much. It's also difficult to avoid information on the internet whose sole source is Wikipedia. It's like an intellectual virus whose propagation is every uncritical idiot who uses it as a source.
This needs a {{fact}} tag. I'm sure you're leaving out how these editors were trying to add inflammatory or POV material, ignored all requests to stop, refused well-meaning compromises, and repeatedly edit warred to get their version in. Even so, if you can tell me how to get banned by adding verifiable, NPOV material in one edit, I will make that edit and we will see if I get banned.
No. I'm talking about knowledgeable editors, experts in their fields who have been banned or suspended because they were trying to correct information that was grossly wrong, and were attacked by one or more editors and then admins who backed them. Those are matters of fact.
I don't believe I said you should take a simple factual error to dispute resolution. I said that if you see something plainly wrong on Wikipedia -- like the elephant population tripling -- click the edit link and fix it. The people who end up at ArbCom are personally obsessed with obscure topics, trying to force their views on everyone else. They are the personification of stubborn.
Nope. Sometimes they've just been pushed there by the admins who claim to know better. Many ArbCom decisions on matters of fact have been grossly wrong.
But hey! It's free! What's the problem with that?
You think it's broken because it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be. If you wish it to conform, you are making it your responsibility. That drive for Wikipedia to be something other than it is did not exist before you willed it. "Wikipedia" is not trying to be perfect or even better, because it cannot try to do anything.
I think China as a model for a country is grossly wrong. I can give you chapter and verse on why. That doesn't mean its my responsibility to {{fixit}}
There is no website more guilty of agenda-driven science than RealClimate. Most of its articles are driven entirely by politics and a seeming vendetta against any scientist who dares challenge them on it (most science questions are simply moderated out of existence)
Its the pot calling the kettle black.
But will it run Linux?
I think it was you who attacked me.
Your mistake is in regarding Wikipedia as an entity with goals or responsibilities. Wikipedia is simply the collection of the input of its users, of which you are one. If you want something on Wikipedia to change, it is up to you to do something about it.
You've failed to answer the question. Why do I have a responsibility to Wikipedia when Wikipedia has no responsibility to me? Why is it my problem that Wikipedia is full of mistakes, half-truths, lies and omissions? Do I have any say as to whether I accept being an unpaid slave?
You don't get banned for being bold. You don't even get banned for being a dick. You get banned for being stubborn. Doing something stupid once almost never results in a ban. Doing something stupid repeatedly after being asked to stop will get you banned.
I've seen lots of people get banned for writing something that is demonstrably true that pissed off an administrator. And then other administrators backed the original admin. Arbitration or any conflict resolution is a sick joke on Wikipedia. In the end, the most obsessive person wins by gaming the system, not by anyone standing up for historical accuracy or scholarship.
It ISN'T my responsibility to fix Wikipedia. If the model is broken, then its broken.
Since when is it my responsibility to fix Wikipedia? And what happens when one of the many crazies simply reverts it? As for the "Be Bold" directive, don't make me laugh - people get themselves banned for being bold.
Wikipedia has no responsibility to me to keep me properly informed - why should I have any responsibility to Wikipedia?
"(Let's hope that, in Novell, Peugeot Citroen hasn't bought a lemon.)"
Let's hope that Slashdot contributors stop behaving like crazed fundamentalist idiots at the mere mention of Novell's SuSE Linux (which rocks by the way) because of an agreement to share technology with Microsoft.
Novell has fscked up in lots of ways but SuSE Linux isn't one of them.